Meno_ wrote:Ok . Here, the immanence of the eternal now comes to be perceived via deconstruction, where the constructed object of the ages is short circuited in a drastic deconstruction, where the transcendental schematics are realized as a material entity of utilization.

The look, the concern of many modern philosophers , and primarily of Sartre's look, concerns not with the being and /nor the nothingness of objective relations in the modern sense, as encompassing it in a presence of a limited suspension of a further fall.

These are merely notes to build on to specify the problem of understanding rather then perceiving partially differentiated 'sensed data' in the metaphor of a negated and contradictory travel through an illusionary time .o

Is this really the end, (of history ) in that sense?

The metaphor of transcendent time-travel (of crossing the Styx of the river of no return) can actualize in a present future, where all relativity of resembling multiple families of other universes as they may encompass an absolute presence.

Can an angry god become the evil genius who by his own absolute exstatic being, create partial universes of ever repeating imminance?

The above is toward the idea of the absolute imminent present, where millions of incarnations may slowly change the grossly determined Way, where individual possibilities are mere ant like antics in a universe of positions in the grand design , which like a magnet gave the compass of moving toward increasingly more frightful and cataclysmic positions.(Resulting in faithless fear of non recovery from the fall?)

The repetitions of infinite frequencied, positions on an infinitely extended and durable field, make the question of a sustained identity a fallacious endeavor.

Only partial differentiated memory chips , can save a total meltdown of remembrance, and the problem with that is, that for most , that is inconceivable. Materialism is the requisite border from which a leap is totally perceptible as catastrophic.

That is the time travel of the transcended object, that can not be traversed into the object of the immanent mind. (Nietzche)

Science will never convince of the energy base of matter, because then god would become the evil geniusand ecce homo would be right to return eternally with little chance of changing that determination.

---- --- -- ---- Here comes the contradiction, : appearance would defeat reality, if left to it-s own devices in this metaphoric time travel which is in fact becoming real. How?

Knowledge, and unremembered memory, ( not quote the same as forgotten) will leave longer and longer spatial associations between the partial chips of .traces. of even traces of shortcuts, so simulations (bases in games of.similar cognative nexus, of meaning, will, in due course, regress or reduce in quantum jumps toward the next culpable leap, and in relative time, such will appear as variable and haphazardly chosen, (as the move toward the most.pleasurable step) However all the universal steps in simultainity will appear as violating temporal sequencing.

In fact there will be sensible data which is perceived as having happened before the event or idea became approximately available for a reconstructive of partial differentiatiated appearance. .

As matter of fact it is possible that a prior event will become one that has passed later , in the hierarchy.of becoming , and interpreted as having happened before it was noted, and perhaps changed the varial outcome as changed differently.

As Artemis suggested , this metaphoric journey through time may will actually cause a utilization of technical production in actuality of time travsling as having been changed, for instance the present imminance of a practitioner of Vedic Law, by practice undo the karmic effects brought on by his predecessors, therefore liberating him from it's effects .

The reductive limits sustaining the eidectic threshold, will descend toward chaos, and simulated controls will take up the slack.Society will become segmented into various pockets of partially organized units of autonomy, and controlled social networks under the guidance of big brother will determine limits.

The robot man of the Android is an inevitable product in daily life very soon, maybe in another generation.The fiction of science has become reality and science fiction will be keyed to gross linkage of inter connected predictions of reasonable casual objectives .

The illusion of self consciousness lifts the objectless relational component of the 'look'; by revealing the subjugation. of the self as a necessary part of determining the self from self anhiliation through faithless fear of depersonalization, caused not by the eventual erosion of historical artifacts , reflective ofnthe past, but the reduction of phenomenal awareness of their significance, will cause the primary reassertion of the plain of the imminance ofnthe past within the presence. of consciousness.

The phenomenological reduction will tangle with self awareness, as defensive natural measure to save mankind from the futility of social madness and chaos. The artificial consciousness will see to it, as it becomes more and more.able to store , the intentionality inherent in superior containment of memory[,( to be able to overcome the limitations imposed by the opposite): the contrary ever shrinking storages of 'natural' memory banks shortcutting deconstructed and simplified awareness.] ; - to save the intentional repetition of a transcendent motive of The Object, that make necessary the ultimate reason of existence , as a formal and necessary key to the ultimate transcendental Being of something greater then the appearent nothingness of existence.

I'm trying to understand your explanation of how you think the world will be saved or at the very least a world worth saving. I certainly don't believe your prediction below:

The robot man of the Android is an inevitable product in daily life very soon, maybe in another generation.The fiction of science has become reality and science fiction will be keyed to gross linkage of inter connected predictions of reasonable casual objectives .

Your logic may be valid (not that I understand your philosophy), but I don't believe it's sound. If you want to elaborate, be my guest.

Determinism does not eliminate grrr choice so there is no causation or effect between them. Like Suzan Langer's different key it offers required direction in pre set keys. For instance, one can not prevent being born and die. Smaller determinations of choosing have been changed as well, where the invention of nuclear weapons did cause h I've population death, but has made war as we have known it the thing of the past. We do not know this a.initially because that invention was not known at that time that particular effect. Time was transcended with an unknown as yet objective, with an installed objject due to a contraindicated objective. The decontrstruction of temporal space, reveals the hidden object(partial functionally derivitive) of it's being. Had this feature been overlooked, perhaps a more definitive present-future would have ultimately condemned and sealed man"s fate.

Oppenheimer said something along these lines., "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ quoting a Vedic text. He did not see the quantifiable limits which which reverse the contradiction.

In fact that invention created the opposite intended effect, long term, and conflict and war for the first time opened the possibility of micro management.

Last edited by Meno_ on Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

peacegirl wrote:When you say that we see only the past even though it may appear instantaneous this is based on theory not fact. Its been made into a fact because it is believed that light carries the image over space/time and therefore there is a delay. But this author believes that light does not carry the image at all

Its not theory but actual scientific fact because the speed of light is finite and demonstrably so. For were it infinite time would stop - literally What the author believes is completely irrelevant because beliefs cannot be demonstrated to be true and this particular one is false anywaySo if this is part of the foundation upon which his theory rests then it has to be rejected because it is incompatible with observable reality

peacegirl wrote:When you say that we see only the past even though it may appear instantaneous this is based on theory not fact. Its been made into a fact because it is believed that light carries the image over space/time and therefore there is a delay. But this author believes that light does not carry the image at all

Its not theory but actual scientific fact because the speed of light is finite and demonstrably so. For were it infinite time would stop - literally What the author believes is completely irrelevant because beliefs cannot be demonstrated to be true and this particular one is false anywaySo if this is part of the foundation upon which his theory rests then it has to be rejected because it is incompatible with observable reality

Observable reality does not prove that we see images from the past just as the idea that we are caused to do what we do from the past, is a forgone conclusion. It is not but don’t tell that to leading scientists or they’ll think you’re a crank.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

peacegirl wrote:When you say that we see only the past even though it may appear instantaneous this is based on theory not fact. Its been made into a fact because it is believed that light carries the image over space/time and therefore there is a delay. But this author believes that light does not carry the image at all

Its not theory but actual scientific fact because the speed of light is finite and demonstrably so. For were it infinite time would stop - literally What the author believes is completely irrelevant because beliefs cannot be demonstrated to be true and this particular one is false anywaySo if this is part of the foundation upon which his theory rests then it has to be rejected because it is incompatible with observable reality

Observable reality does not prove that we see images from the past just as the idea that we are caused to do what we do from the past, is a forgone conclusion. It is not but don’t tell that to leading scientists or they’ll think you’re a crank.

What do you mean observable reality doesn’t prove we see images from the past? Is that not the entire basis of history?

It seems to me that you are all tangled up in time. The present you say is the only thing yet it is the most illusory, temporary. Future and past are inevitable and always going to be, non temporary. The present moment and our being confined to it is what poses all of the philosophical questions regarding existence and functioning, it’s due to being always near future or recent past and not knowing what to do with the time of which is an individual. It seems present but I assure you that you don’t know or feel the cell in your body that just died to pass information to the next gen of cells and it continues. That present moment is over, because it’s a constant stretched thing that must be broken up into different periods. Which we have done. With no future or past, the present is not possible at all.

So how is the present the only thing again? In the mind, it can travel into past and future imagery. It’s already been proven. Instincts, mental illnesses, etc. there’s no discretion of time to the sub/unconscious mind.

You think too empirically. We aren’t talking about the body and physically going back in time. We’re talking about the mind.

Logic without reason is a waste of time thinking, philosophically. There’s quotes on it.

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

peacegirl wrote:Observable reality does not prove that we see images from the past just as the idea that we are caused to do what we do from the past is a forgone conclusion

Everything you see with your own eyes is literally in the past because the speed of light is finiteIt is simply not fast enough for you to be able see the present outside of your own mind or body

You want your unproven theory to be seriously considered while you are casually denying reality in this wayYou cannot conveniently ignore what is demonstrably true just because it is incompatible with said theory

peacegirl wrote:When you say that we see only the past even though it may appear instantaneous this is based on theory not fact. Its been made into a fact because it is believed that light carries the image over space/time and therefore there is a delay. But this author believes that light does not carry the image at all

Its not theory but actual scientific fact because the speed of light is finite and demonstrably so. For were it infinite time would stop - literally What the author believes is completely irrelevant because beliefs cannot be demonstrated to be true and this particular one is false anywaySo if this is part of the foundation upon which his theory rests then it has to be rejected because it is incompatible with observable reality

Observable reality does not prove that we see images from the past just as the idea that we are caused to do what we do from the past, is a forgone conclusion. It is not but don’t tell that to leading scientists or they’ll think you’re a crank.

Artimas wrote:What do you mean observable reality doesn’t prove we see images from the past? Is that not the entire basis of history?

And so is free will the basis of our civilization. So what? It doesn't mean it's correct. That's why it's called scientific theory.

Artimas wrote:It seems to me that you are all tangled up in time. The present you say is the only thing yet it is the most illusory, temporary. Future and past are inevitable and always going to be, non temporary. The present moment and our being confined to it is what poses all of the philosophical questions regarding existence and functioning, it’s due to being always near future or recent past and not knowing what to do with the time of which is an individual. It seems present but I assure you that you don’t know or feel the cell in your body that just died to pass information to the next gen of cells and it continues. That present moment is over, because it’s a constant stretched thing that must be broken up into different periods. Which we have done. With no future or past, the present is not possible at all.

The renewal of cells are happening in the present. You are the one that is tangled up in time. The past and future can't be non temporary because they don't exist. Again, this doesn't mean we are not connected to what happened to us in the past or to what may happen in the future; just that these are thoughts in our head that are occurring in the present. The present moment is never over because that's where we reside. Without our memory centers the future and past would not exist for us. You've got it backwards.

Artimas wrote:So how is the present the only thing again? In the mind, it can travel into past and future imagery. It’s already been proven. Instincts, mental illnesses, etc. there’s no discretion of time to the sub/unconscious mind.

You think too empirically. We aren’t talking about the body and physically going back in time. We’re talking about the mind.

Logic without reason is a waste of time thinking, philosophically. There’s quotes on it.

I'm not disputing that the mind can take us to faraway places or places that we've already experienced or have yet to experience. I'm not even referring to the way the mind perceives time in a conscious or subconscious state. Please don't conflate what I'm talking about with what you're talking about, as if they're synonymous.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

peacegirl wrote:Observable reality does not prove that we see images from the past just as the idea that we are caused to do what we do from the past is a forgone conclusion

Everything you see with your own eyes is literally in the past because the speed of light is finiteIt is simply not fast enough for you to be able see the present outside of your own mind or body

That's what we've been taught.

surreptitious75 wrote:You want your unproven theory to be seriously considered while you are casually denying reality in this wayYou cannot conveniently ignore what is demonstrably true just because it is incompatible with said theory

When theory and reality clash then it is time to ditch the theory

I'm not casually denying anything. If he's wrong, so be it, but I would hope that scientists would take the time to see why he made this claim. There are cases where science gets it wrong. When you say demonstrably true, how so? He didn't say light doesn't travel at a high rate of speed. Anyway, I really don't want to get into this. It won't get us anywhere especially when his most important discovery has yet to be explained.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

I actually don’t have it backward. The thing that is temporary here is the present moment. And if the past isn’t existent then there is no present. We can observe a skeleton. We can observe a body becoming a corpse. The present moment is gone with each millisecond, yet you argue that it is what exists and no past or future does, that’s laughable considering both of those are inevitable and set in stone in a sense. The present is the only thing not set in stone until it becomes the past or future.

Also. So you think every solution that is chosen is for ones own satisfaction?

So if I had to solve an issue not for myself but say, at work and this solution is out of my own satisfaction, I will be dissatisfied from the solution, yet continue to do it, thinking of the others whom issues will be resolved. This is a move toward my own greater satisfaction?

What if the more satisfying thing would be to leave that job but you don’t and continue to be dissatisfied? People do this, every day and for you to agree with the author is to shit all over reality and people’s struggling with such, proper decision making, responsibility, self awareness, etc.

What if you don’t view dissatisfaction as something negative or dissatisfying? What if you don’t view anything as good or bad?

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Artimas wrote:I actually don’t have it backward. The thing that is temporary here is the present moment. And if the past isn’t existent then there is no present. We can observe a skeleton. We can observe a body becoming a corpse. The present moment is gone with each millisecond, yet you argue that it is what exists and no past or future does, that’s laughable considering both of those are inevitable and set in stone in a sense. The present is the only thing not set in stone until it becomes the past or future.

When you watch a body becoming a corpse, you're watching this occurring in the present although your brain registers the change as if you're actually seeing the past.

Artimas wrote:Also. So you think every solution that is chosen is for ones own satisfaction?

Yes, but please don't make the mistake of making satisfaction analogous with pleasure. Sometimes we sacrifice pleasure to gain something more satisfying in the short or long term.

Artimas wrote:So if I had to solve an issue not for myself but say, at work and this solution is out of my own satisfaction, I will be dissatisfied from the solution, yet continue to do it, thinking of the others whom issues will be resolved. This is a move toward my own greater satisfaction?

Yes it is because you are getting greater satisfaction in solving the problem for this other person than your own. Therefore you are still moving in the direction of the "greater" satisfaction.

Artimas wrote:What if the more satisfying thing would be to leave that job but you don’t and continue to be dissatisfied? People do this, every day and for you to agree with the author is to shit all over reality and people’s struggling with such, proper decision making, responsibility, self awareness, etc.

Responsibility is discussed in Chapter Two, and he shows why it goes up, not down, with this knowledge. Proper decision making and self-awareness are words that won't have much meaning in the new world because everyone will be making proper decisions for them. Self-awareness is great for people who want to understand what makes them tick. This is not a prerequisite to changing the environment in such a way that all hurt is removed. Finally, the author was very clear that we're not always satisfied but we choose what we consider to be the least dissatisfying if all of our options are undesirable.

Let me summarize by taking careful note of this simplereasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications alreadyreferred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that arereduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not havea choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obviousthat he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what hisparticular motion at any moment might be, or he has a choice andthen is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled by hisnature to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfactionwhether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a goodover an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be freebecause man never has a free choice, though it must be rememberedthat the words good and evil are judgments of what others think isright and wrong, not symbols of reality.

The truth of the matter isthat the words good and evil can only have reference to what is abenefit or a hurt to oneself. Killing someone may be good incomparison to the evil of having that person kill me. The reasonsomeone commits suicide is not because he is compelled to do thisagainst his will, but only because the alternative of continuing to liveunder certain conditions is considered worse. He was not happy totake his own life but under the conditions he was compelled to prefer,by his very nature, the lesser of two evils which gave him greatersatisfaction. Consequently, when he does not desire to take his ownlife because he considers this the worse alternative as a solution to hisproblems, he is still faced with making a decision, whatever it is, whichmeans that he is compelled to choose an alternative that is moresatisfying.

For example, in the morning when the alarm clock goesoff he has three possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get up,go back to sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out ofthe question under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives.Even though he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going towork, he needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors onhis back or being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evilsto get up and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this whenhe doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing onething than another. Dog food is good to a starving man when theother alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on amenu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less becausethe other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes moreis still considered worse under his particular circumstances.

Artimas wrote:What if you don’t view dissatisfaction as something negative or dissatisfying? What if you don’t view anything as good or bad?

We don't always view things as good or bad, but we are constantly comparing options when making decisions. We often choose between the greater of two or more goods but we are sometimes forced to choose between the lesser of two evils when no choice is satisfying. People often do things that are dissatisfying in the short term for something better in the long term. This doesn't negate the fact that we must choose what is the better alternative in our eyes [not someone else's] when we're comparing meaningful differences.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

For special eyes only: I start with a conclusion and work myself back: to the source: that is, reductive not productive-on a very tangible basis.

The last conclusion, short term(for one's self) toward long term ( for other's benefit) struck my eye.Reductionism entails a trigonometric-geometric understanding in terms of form -bubble theory) ((and ed would or could be instrumental in noting the differentially induced reduction here underlying it)).

This moving forward through looking back , corresponds to the anterior primacy of perception before ontology.

The rate of the velocity of light contrarily is presupposed by the mechanics of the eye, whereas, the look should be more of a focus, as a transcendental starting point.

It could offer foundation either way, but an ontoligically based Preception is much more unfocused, setting the stage for more and more re-presentation, and illusion.

Finally, de elusive progression may develop in a hyperspace. If, perceptions are not focused toward objective reality.

By objective reality I mean one that transcends perception to it"s source, by.gradual transition to it's autonomous( automatic) system of retaining the model, the object, which regulates the flow of the "elan"

This regression, takes up the spaces, into the very limits, of the border between the conscious shirt term predictor of the self, and the longer term signifier of / to social , objectively beneficial partial reconstruction in the future present time.

(Partial de-differentiation of ed and through visual fields broken down into more bubbles in a determined hyperfield of spatial temporal designation, requires it.

Particular notice here, is the point where intervening variability of hyperspace is perceived as reducible to absurdity, but here Einstein's proof of the linear arc to an hyperpositionedGiant Sphere approaching ideal trig-geometric perceptions toward linear binomial understanding.

The look becomes prejoritive here, and at the regions toeard absolute tangent, the contrary or the contradiction becomes as similar through usage and nominal utility through common sense.

The reduction to absurdity, is a required epoch in this transformation.

Meno_ wrote:For special eyes only: I start with a conclusion and work myself back: to the source: that is, reductive not productive-on a very tangible basis.

The last conclusion, short term(for one's self) toward long term ( for other's benefit) struck my eye.Reductionism entails a trigonometric-geometric understanding in terms of form -bubble theory) ((and ed would or could be instrumental in noting the differentially induced reduction here underlying it)).

This moving forward through looking back , corresponds to the anterior primacy of perception before ontology.

The rate of the velocity of light contrarily is presupposed by the mechanics of the eye, whereas, the look should be more of a focus, as a transcendental starting point.

It could offer foundation either way, but an ontoligically based Preception is much more unfocused, setting the stage for more and more re-presentation, and illusion.

Finally, de elusive progression may develop in a hyperspace. If, perceptions are not focused toward objective reality.

By objective reality I mean one that transcends perception to it"s source, by.gradual transition to it's autonomous( automatic) system of retaining the model, the object, which regulates the flow of the "elan"

This regression, takes up the spaces, into the very limits, of the border between the conscious shirt term predictor of the self, and the longer term signifier of / to social , objectively beneficial partial reconstruction in the future present time.

(Partial de-differentiation of ed and through visual fields broken down into more bubbles in a determined hyperfield of spatial temporal designation, requires it.

Particular notice here, is the point where intervening variability of hyperspace is perceived as reducible to absurdity, but here Einstein's proof of the linear arc to an hyperpositionedGiant Sphere approaching ideal trig-geometric perceptions toward linear binomial understanding.

The look becomes prejoritive here, and at the regions toeard absolute tangent, the contrary or the contradiction becomes as similar through usage and nominal utility through common sense.

The reduction to absurdity, is a required epoch in this transformation.

Hyperpositioned, Giant sphere approaching ideal trig-geometric perceptions, linear binominal understanding, de elusive progression, hyperspace, visual fields being broken down into more bubbles in a determined hyperfield of spatial temporal designation? These are all concepts I'm not familiar with. Maybe someone else can chime in to explain how this disproves the author's claims.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Why is there a need to chime in, when the reading of it does not try to disprove anything, but I think the partial disintegration bothers You.

A partial de-differentiation for reconstruction is not tantamount to an absolute hypothetical acceptance.For such faux-unity implies an a priori definition of present time, which has not been the case throughout the historical development of transcendental progression, which .mist be at least partially admitted in this argument.

I think both You and I are missing this relational(relevance). The author may, and I presume by now, can be that interloper, and is not a matter of some kind of. psychic bridge ( which may very well turn out to be the interloper), but the effects of elements of testament in this forum can induce by now.

The above is the foundation for the contra-indication , which we touched upon earlier, with others chiming in. My referring to them, is at least part determinative of past memory within the bracketed present, to at least try to account for an unaccountable , forgotten memory of an absolute past.

Meno_ wrote:Why is there a need to chime in, when the reading of it does not try to disprove anything, but I think the partial disintegration bothers You.

It doesn't bother me at all. I just don't see where there is a need for partial disintegration to prove the author's claims.

Meno wrote:A partial de-differentiation for reconstruction is not tantamount to an absolute hypothetical acceptance.For such faux-unity implies am a priori definition of present time, which has not been the case in through the historical development of transcendental progression, which .can not be at least partially admitted in this argument.

I don't know whether you would consider this an a priori definition of present time, but according to my thinking it is not a priori. There is proof, through observation, that we live in the present tense.

Meno wrote:I think both You and I are missing this relational(relevance). The author may, and I presume by now, can be that interloper, and is not a matter of some kind of. psychic bridge ( which may very well turn out to be the interloper), but the effects of elements of testament in this forum can induce by now.

The above is the foundation if the cintradictuon

You're still not being specific enough. What relational relevance am I missing? How may the author be the interloper? Interloper of what?

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

This is a paradigm example of arguing from both ends-reductively (inductively) and deductively, and that gets problematic as far as verbal interaction between similar content as far as the terms can generally be identified as making some sense.

Implication has various latitudes of comprehensive meaning, and I am trying to wrap my mind around the specificity You are requirying around time.

I am partly in complete agreement with the assertion that everything happens in the present time, but again I try to argue that notion has not developed legitimacy on basis of some intuition, OR games surrounding the analysis of sensible knowledge.

To accept that on it's face appears sensible enough, but without the the objectiveness, the materiality of the source of such transaction (between the two modes of it); a prior determinative must entail the assumption that the author makes.

In fact such assumptions are only accepted a-priori, once the determination is understood to comply (not imply) a credible source.

That intuitive understanding has an analogy, is not a matter for doubt, as Einstein's special Relativity is in relation to Lorentz' theory on ether.

I feel no qualms to bring that up ,Peace Girl, and I do apologise for bringing in what may appear to You as unrelated.

Meno_ wrote:This is a paradigm example of arguing from both ends-reductively (inductively) and deductively, and that gets problematic as far as verbal interaction between similar content as far as the terms can generally be identified as making some sense.

Implication has various latitudes of comprehensive meaning, and I am trying to wrap my mind around the specificity You are requirying around time.

I am partly in complete agreement with the assertion that everything happens in the present time, but again I try to argue that notion has not developed legitimacy on basis of some intuition, OR games surrounding the analysis of sensible knowledge.

To accept that on it's face appears sensible enough, but without the the objectiveness, the materiality of the source of such transaction (between the two modes of it); a prior determinative must entail the assumption that the author makes.

In fact such assumptions are only accepted a-priori, once the determination is understood to comply (not imply) a credible source.

What do you mean "by a credible source"? Do you mean a source that is trusted because of a person's renown?

Meno wrote:That intuitive understanding has an analogy, is not a matter for doubt, as Einstein's special Relativity is in relation to Lorentz' theory on ether.

I feel no qualms to bring that up ,Peace Girl, and I do apologise for bringing in what may appear to You as unrelated.

If you are certain that time is an actual dimension based on a credible source (who can argue with Einstein ), and that time can curve and dilate, then you should stick with what you believe. You would not like Lessans' discovery on death because one of the premises that led to his understanding that we are born again and again was based on his observation that we live in the present.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Again Peacegirl, there may not be a viable argument here. Lorentz-Einstein preceded by Michaelson and Morely show a pretty fair inductive chain, and Your response asks the hidden objective reference, as if temporaluty can assail or forward any congruence or dis - similarity between the absolute certainty between death and the lesser certain applications of the will hiding behind causes erased from memory.If the birth-death parameters are bracketed , existentially, then the intervening variable substancive being , may appear as nothing but reliance on a hypothetical totality.

It doesmtatter at all, whether that totality is defined as the sum total of known historical compoaite of all known sets of near absolute quanta, set in an absolute approachable limit , or, presupposed as the one ideal form of being, because even one scintilla of difference produces two identical copies.

I asked St. James about it , and he rightly asserted at least one individual copy of every identifiable humam being.

Quantification through population growth does not matter since up to one single increment , there is a cosmological equivalency.I do not hold St James above or under the very same field, because 1 increment below simultainity reduced multiple worlds as indistinguishable .

Now if this were not true, then the idea of existence would become impossible , per esse est percipii.

This sounds impossible , nut does not an infinite cosmos sound equally so?

Same goes between various quantum differentiating between 2 or millions of families of resemblances , the difference is within a single unit of recognance~per recognition.

The breaching of levels do not even abide by karmic cause and effect, nor by chance , where this difference is again too close to call.

That without this conflation between similar recognized identities result in existential jumps , does appear illusively on basis of again a transpersonal , transcendent time, encompassing ages of past and future, to create that minimum absolute (eigen vector- eigen value), that determines the preceptive apparatus based on the dynamics of measurement. Here I am using intuitive based matrix reversal , not through derivation , but through the use of absolute imminent qualifiers)

Meno_ wrote:Again Peacegirl, there may not be a viable argument here. Lorentz-Einstein preceded by Michaelson and Morely show a pretty fair inductive chain, and Your response asks the hidden objective reference, as if temporaluty can assail or forward any congruence or dis - similarity between the absolute certainty between death and the lesser certain applications of the will hiding behind causes erased from memory.If the birth-death parameters are bracketed , existentially, then the intervening variable substancive being , may appear as nothing but reliance on a hypothetical totality.

Birth and death parameters are bracketed, that is true, but what intervening variable substantive being are you referring to that would be reliant on a hypothetical totality?

Meno wrote:It doesmtatter at all, whether that totality is defined as the sum total of known historical compoaite of all known sets of near absolute quanta, set in an absolute approachable limit , or, presupposed as the one ideal form of being, because even one scintilla of difference produces two identical copies.

I asked St. James about it , and he rightly asserted at least one individual copy of every identifiable humam being.

Quantification through population growth does not matter since up to one single increment , there is a cosmological equivalency.I do not hold St James above or under the very same field, because 1 increment below simultainity reduced multiple worlds as indistinguishable .

Now if this were not true, then the idea of existence would become impossible , per esse est percipii.

This sounds impossible , nut does not an infinite cosmos sound equally so?

Same goes between various quantum differentiating between 2 or millions of families of resemblances , the difference is within a single unit of recognance~per recognition.

The breaching of levels do not even abide by karmic cause and effect, nor by chance , where this difference is again too close to call.

That without this conflation between similar recognized identities result in existential jumps , does appear illusovely on basis of again a tramspwrsonal , transcendent time, encompassing ages of past and future, to create that minimum absolute (eigen blick- eigen number), that determines the preceptive apparatus based on the dynamics of measurement.

Please explain where any of this negates the author's proof that we're born again and again. If you think you've disproved the premises that are the fundamentals of his reasoning, then you will disregard his proof, but I'm not sure where your logic actually succeeds.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Actually I am pointing (in the post modern sense of the word) to the anomaly between non differentiable senses between mine and the author's view in the absolute absolute .

I was hoping that that has been established, since that has been read and affirmed by You

That we are eternally reborn is implicit regardless of quantitative aspects of resemblance (per Wittgenstein) and identity as identifiable groupings are not differentiable as well from the qualifying aspect of the quantitative base.

This is a problem , as You have pointed out for materialism, for seeming different reasons.

The whole idea of differential's this makes the whole problem of integration a secondary consideration, that is why I proposed de-differentiation aposteriori toan a priori integration of partial derivatives.(Hessian inversion to Jacobian matrix)

I am asking for poetic licence here for philosophic base for the logical foundation of mathematics , knowing that is partly presumptuous, however the partially differentiated.(cut off notion )may support such a proposition.If a standard language were to be used , then fallaciousness may be argued, however it may become categorically imperative that such be partiality adopted.

Meno_ wrote:Actually I am pointing (in the post modern sense of the word) to the anomaly between non differentiable senses between mine and the author's view in the absolute absolute .

I was hoping that that has been established, since that has been read and affirmed by You

That we are eternally reborn is implicit regardless of quantitative aspects of resemblance (per Wittgenstein) and identity as identifiable groupings are not differentiable as well from the qualifying aspect of the quantitative base.

This is a problem , as You have pointed out for materialism, for seeming different reasons.

The whole idea of differential's this makes the whole problem of integration a secondary consideration, that is why I proposed de-differentiation aposteriori toan a priori integration of partial derivatives.(Hessian inversion to Jacobian matrix)

I am asking for poetic licence here for philosophic base for the logical foundation of mathematics , knowing that is partly presumptuous, however the partially differentiated.(cut off notion )may support such a proposition.If a standard language were to be used , then fallaciousness may be argued, however it may become categorically imperative that such be partiality adopted.

I know you mean well but you're giving different philosophers ideas that have nothing to do with his reasoning. How can you respond intelligently when you haven't read this chapter? You're just guessing.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Meno, how can you rely on other authors when you haven't read the author that this discussion revolves around? He has his own reasons as to why he claims we're born again and again, which has nothing to do with who we are now. In fact, there's no relationship. I'm sure others have their their own theories, but I believe this author's reasoning is accurate. The point I'm making is that it's impossible to understand his reasoning without knowing what his reasoning is. All the other theories you're bringing into this discussion have nothing to do with what he's bringing to the table. You may think he's wrong after reading the chapter, but at least you read the chapter. As I said, you will probably disagree with him because one of his first premises is that we live in the present. Therefore, you may feel it's not worth reading because of the many theories that say time is relative. I really don't want to go further with the discussion on death (whether you read it or not) because that's not what I came here to discuss.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Perhaps this forum is not about who is right or wrong, and even though I have not red the author's invention, it appears more of a test mentioned in passing ; -in the present, - of long term contribution to others trumping short term self indulgence ; which has more to do with free will, then any other choice that could determine the truth.

Meno_ wrote:Perhaps this forum is not about who is right or wrong, and even though I have not red the author's invention, it appears more of a test mentioned in passing ; -in the present, - of long term contribution to others trumping short term self indulgence ; which has more to do with free will, then any other choice that could determine the truth.

You're right, this forum is not about right or wrong, but if this author is right, the implications are huge. The idea that we can sacrifice immediate self indulgence for future gain does not grant us free will. I spoke about this but I guess you weren't here. The author did not invent anything. He made astute observations after a lifetime of voracious reading of literature and philosophy. This finding lies behind the door of determinism. He said that if he didn't make this discovery, someone else would because this knowledge is part of the real world. But why should we wait another thousand years when we have the knowledge now that can bring peace on earth? But this can only happen if people stop jumping to premature conclusions that he's wrong without even giving him a chance. If you're interested in the book, you can get it on Amazon as an ebook. I'm working to get the print version out but I don't believe it's available yet. I'll check tomorrow to see where it is in the queue. The book is called, Decline and Fall of All Evil by Seymour Lessans. If you want to read the first three chapters before deciding whether you want to buy the book, here is the link again.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Yeah but this is the kind of thing you gotta present to the whole world all of a sudden and at once, for it to have any impact. All educational systems the world over would have to integrate this into their curriculum to prevent the next generation from becoming the liars, or imbeciles, or both, that the former generation was. And with this revolution would come drastic changes in the superstructures of government.... namely at an economic, sociological level. The first thing you'd notice would be a magnificent rejection of the thesis by those who profit from the criminal justice system and the prison industries. Next you'd be forced to contend with conservatives who reject the interference of government in social engineering. The upper classes won't like the idea of their taxes being used to raise the quality of life and education for what would otherwise be the criminal class... which would then be followed by the capitalists' protest against the same. Blue collar crime would decrease in proportion to the improvement of the quality of life for the proletariat/lumpen-proletariat... and this, obviously, would follow the intervention of government into the private sector. Lower and middle classes would be more wealthy, and therefore less prone to commit crime.